A Rocci1, R Calcaterra2, M Rocci1, C Rocci1, M DI Girolamo3, L Baggi4. 1. Private Practice, Chieti, Italy. 2. Department of Social Dentistry, National Institute for Health, Migration and Poverty, Rome, Italy. 3. School of Dentistry, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Social Dentistry, National Institute for Health, Migration and Poverty, School of Dentistry, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study we tested two different type of implant systems that were selected on the basis of differences in macrogeometry of platform switching in order to evaluate the behavior in term of BIC on the platform. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The patients were divided in two groups (Group I and II); group I was composed by 4 patients that each received in the posterior areas of mandible one type A implant (3,6 mm in diameter and 6,5 mm in length GTBPlan1Health Amaro (UD) Italy) one type B implant (4 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length OsseoSpeed Astra Tech, Dentsply Molndal, Sweden). Group II was composed by 3 patients that each received in the posterior areas of jawsbone one type A implant [3,6 mm in diameter and 6,5 mm in length GTB- Plan1Health Amaro, (UD), Italy] one type B implant (4 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length OsseoSpeed Astra Tech, Dentsply Molndal, Sweden). All the implants were placed, by the same operator, in equicrestal position using "one stage" technique with a healing abutment at an adequate gingival height. After 12 weeks of healing all the implants of both groups were harvested with the peri-implant bone tissues. BIC upon platform was calculated considering as implant surface the platform length. RESULTS: Our results showed that the mean percentage of BIC value related to platform surface placed in equicrestal position was higher in patients with type A implant than patients receiving type B implant independently from mandibular or maxillary positions. Moreover the mean percentage of BIC related to platform surface was significantly (p<0.05) higher in Group II/A than Group I/A. CONCLUSIONS: Our data highlights that the particular features of the Bioplatform of Type A implant systems guarantee a higher value of BIC even if the implants were placed equicrestally.
OBJECTIVE: In this study we tested two different type of implant systems that were selected on the basis of differences in macrogeometry of platform switching in order to evaluate the behavior in term of BIC on the platform. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The patients were divided in two groups (Group I and II); group I was composed by 4 patients that each received in the posterior areas of mandible one type A implant (3,6 mm in diameter and 6,5 mm in length GTBPlan1Health Amaro (UD) Italy) one type B implant (4 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length OsseoSpeed Astra Tech, Dentsply Molndal, Sweden). Group II was composed by 3 patients that each received in the posterior areas of jawsbone one type A implant [3,6 mm in diameter and 6,5 mm in length GTB- Plan1Health Amaro, (UD), Italy] one type B implant (4 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length OsseoSpeed Astra Tech, Dentsply Molndal, Sweden). All the implants were placed, by the same operator, in equicrestal position using "one stage" technique with a healing abutment at an adequate gingival height. After 12 weeks of healing all the implants of both groups were harvested with the peri-implant bone tissues. BIC upon platform was calculated considering as implant surface the platform length. RESULTS: Our results showed that the mean percentage of BIC value related to platform surface placed in equicrestal position was higher in patients with type A implant than patients receiving type B implant independently from mandibular or maxillary positions. Moreover the mean percentage of BIC related to platform surface was significantly (p<0.05) higher in Group II/A than Group I/A. CONCLUSIONS: Our data highlights that the particular features of the Bioplatform of Type A implant systems guarantee a higher value of BIC even if the implants were placed equicrestally.
Authors: Maria Vittoria Diamanti; Barbara Del Curto; Alberto Barlattani; Patrizio Bollero; Liliana Ottria; Mariapia Pedeferri Journal: J Appl Biomater Biomech Date: 2009 Jan-Apr